<p>Hi,
I have admits from UCLA,CMU and Gatech for MS-EE(Fall 2009).
My specialization is wireless networks and communication.</p>
<p>I would like your views on which would be a better final destination wrt jobs, reputation etc.</p>
<p>You can’t beat Carnegie-Mellon for computer science and engineering, and GATech runs a close second. I don’t know anything about UCLA’s rep in this field, although I’m sure someone will chime in. </p>
<p>Remember that where you attend grad school (reputation of the department) determines your job placement later, especially if you decide to continue in a PhD program after the MS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haven’t heard much out of CMU from the engineering side besides computer architecture stuff. It’s not really the same as communication systems (they’re separate concentrations at GT for sure). I will agree though that the choice is primarily between GT and CMU.</p>
<p>Without knowing the specifics, its definitely between GT and CMU - UCLA is good, but not in the same league. I would normally give the edge to GT - a bit better in the more hardware-centric areas of EE.</p>
<p>Thanks for the replies. This time around UCLA was more selective than the other two colleges. Also, the chances of financial aid seem very less in Gatech and non-existent in CMU. Doesn’t this make UCLA a better choice??</p>
<p>UCLA is more research based. Don’t count on getting real practical experience here. My friends who finished from CMU seem to have had a better experience as far as hands-on knowlegde.</p>
<p>@finish-- Oh… What course did they study?</p>
<p>It would really help if more people voice their opinion here :)</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I am guessing. </p>
<p>Go where the money is.
Because the program apparently is good enough to get funding.</p>
<p>I disagree with LongPrime here - the only money issue should be “Can I afford to go there, yes or no?” After that, there are other far more important issues.</p>
<p>Almost all graduate programs are able to fund some students - TA’s and RA’s save the school money! Don’t use funding availability as a measure of school quality, it is usually the reverse! If you are the top applicant at the school (usually a “safety” school) they will throw money at you, perhaps even a full fellowship. Conversely, at a more competitive school those fellowships are going to the high-forehead types with a 4.00 GPA, 1600 GRE, 3 pubs in Nature, and LOR’s from Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed. At that school - which probably offers much more quality - you may be lucky to score a TA gig.</p>
<p>Also, how do you mean UCLA was more selective? That really surprises me for EE, the way I would understand it.</p>
<p>I would still give GT the edge - I know one alumnus, and he is top notch. The guys from CMU are about the same, but I have never met a UCLA EE grad.</p>
<p>^ Cosmicfish, that is not from DS experience. And hopefully not at the education institution where he is at and writing grant proposals.</p>
<p>LP - This is a complex issue and I think we are both missing important points. </p>
<p>You are correct in that individual PI’s write grants which secure funding for their RA’s. Since it is generally the better PI’s who secure the most and best grants, you can roughly measure the quality of the PI by the level of funding they can offer. Further, since they are awarding it to their own RA’s, it is independent of any departmental review or comparison - it does not matter who got what gpa, just who your PI is.</p>
<p>My point was focused on departmental funds, which are awarded competitively across the whole class, often mostly on the basis of GPA and GRE. For these, your “class standing” determines the award. Let’s say the department can offer fellowships to the top X% - at your “safety school” you may fall into that top X%, but at your “reach school” you may not. Likewise with TA positions, just less competitive.</p>
<p>Further, both programs and PI’s often limit funding to masters students - too small a return on the investment.</p>
<p>At the individual level, you need to understand that the availability of an RA is a rough reflection of the quality of the PI and your standing among their students. The availability of a fellowship or TA is a reflection of your standing among your departmental and/or college classmates. If UCLA is offering great funding, it might be because he has picked a top PI at that school (RA, great!) or because he outshines the other admits (TA/Fellow, not great.) - depends on the type of funding offered. If GT/CMU is offering little to no funding, it might be because he has picked a weak PI (not great.) or because he is outshined by the rest of the class (not great, but speaks well of the program). Understanding which of these applies is key.</p>
<p>Bond, what type of funding were you offered at UCLA?</p>
<p>I still maintain that once you have established which schools you can afford to attend, you should look at more educational/research issues to make the choice. However, as I noted above, availability of RA funds DOES often signal an educational/research issue - the repute of your PI.</p>
<p>
I’m OK with that. DS wanted certain PI’s if he got accepted. Affordability was secondary but nearly a first criteria. DS wanted grad school funding, not because he couldn’t pay out of pocket, but because he would be losing too much income and experience from industry. Today’s situation is opposite of 3-4 years ago. He’s a 2xBS, CMU '06, not EE.</p>
<p>I have not got funding from any university. I just stated that there could be more funding chances at UCLA because of the limited intake of students. I decided UCLA was more selective by looking at the profile of admitted students and comparing it with profiles of people admitted to CMU and Gatech. CMU and Gatech have given a lot of master admits to not so deserving profiles.</p>
<p>Please give your opinion guys…</p>
<p>As for there being more funding at UCLA for masters students because there are fewer masters students,… you would think so…it makes sense. I have absolutely no idea though. I would try to contact UCLA and ask them. If you could speak with faculty about this subject or even contact students, I think that would be very helpful. Often these programs have something like a student liason to field questions from perspective students. If UCLA has something like a student liason, this person would be an ideal person to ask how many Masters students are funded. The faculty and staff may be less likely to give straight answers on the subject vs talking to another student.</p>
<p>I have positive impressions of UCLA, by the way. When I think UCLA EE, I think Razavi(a professor there) or some other good profs who work there.</p>
<p>When I chose where to apply and to accept for a PhD in EE that I will be starting very soon, reputation was important but I though fit and whether I want to spend 4 or 5 years and a University and City were more important. For example, I can understand that somebody may want to live in Southern California just because that’s where they feel comfortable. Some people love Southern California. Personally, I would have no desire to live in the South(Atlanta, GA) or Southern California. That’s just me though.</p>
<p>any other views?</p>
<p>I don’t think you should choose your grad school based on a projection of possible funding since the fact is that you DON’T have funding. Determining your odds of financial aid from selectivity (the number of students denied) or the small size of a program is not reliable. The only question that matters is, “What percentage of masters students are supported during their second year?” (I am presuming that you have been admitted to all programs without support.) Everything may be equally unfunded, as is often the case the masters programs. The sad fact of masters programs is that most are paid for by individuals or by their employers. The PhD students have priority for grant funding and TAships.</p>
<p>I say go to the program that has the best program/professors for your specific interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is this sad? The MS is a salary-increasing degree and not much else. You’re paying the college to give you the opportunity to get a higher paying job.</p>
<p>A sad fact for the OP.</p>